Re: /lib/lsb/init-functions vs. /etc/init.d/functions in init scripts?

[Bill Nottingham <notting redhat com>]

Bernardo Innocenti (bernie codewiz org) said: 
> On 08/28/2007 01:58 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Bernardo Innocenti (bernie codewiz org) said: 
> >> If there are no resources to do it, I hereby volunteer
> >> to do this work in due time, provided there's interest
> >> from the current redhat-lsb maintainers to merge my
> >> changes back.
> > 
> > Taking patches, although I'd start with the stuff in /etc/init.d/functions.
> 
> Agreed.  My idea was to start by moving only the parts
> of code that LSB advertises from /etc/init.d/functions
> to /lib/lsb/init-functions.  Would that make sense?

Not unless lsb/init-functions moves to someplace that doesn't require the whole mess
of the lsb stack; we don't want init scripts bringing in the entirety of openssl,
X, cron, pax, shadow-utils, etc.

Bill